Enforcing the Industrial Emissions Directive in national courts Sam Bright, Energy lawyer, Coal lead, ClientEarth Regina Stoilova, Attorney-at-law, Za Zemiata, Friends of the Earth Bulgaria Dominique Doyle, Energy lawyer, ClientEarth Brussels 25 June 2020
39
Embed
Enforcing the Industrial Emissions Directive in national ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Enforcing the Industrial Emissions Directive in national courts
Sam Bright, Energy lawyer, Coal lead, ClientEarth
Regina Stoilova, Attorney-at-law, Za Zemiata, Friends of the Earth Bulgaria
Dominique Doyle, Energy lawyer, ClientEarth
Brussels25 June 2020
Part I – Introduction to the Industrial Emissions Directive and the applicable access to justice framework
Sam BrightWebinar
25 June 2020
Agenda
1. Overview of IED:
A. Background to IED
B. Core IED permitting obligations
C. Access to justice obligations and obstacles
D. Building an IED case
2. Case study - litigation concerning Maritsa East 2 TPP
3
IED - overview
4
IED – what is it?
• Regulates over 50,000 industrial installations – coal plants to
pig farms, launderettes to petrochemicals factories
• Brought together 7 predecessor Directives – IPPC; LCP;
• (g) Provisions minimising long-distance or transboundary pollution
• Art 14(3): BATc are ‘reference point’ for setting permit conditions
• Art 14(4): authority may set stricter permit conditions than BATc
• Art 14(5)/(6): rules for setting permit conditions w/o relevant BATc
• Art 16: Monitoring requirements based on BATc
• Art 17: General binding rules based on BATc, must = individual
permits
12
Obligations to comply with BATc• Art 15(1): emissions limit values (ELVs) apply at release point
• Art 15(2): ELVs based on ‘best available techniques’ w/o prescribing use of any technique or specific technology
• Art 15(3): ELVs to be set to ensure emissions do not exceed ‘emissions associated with best available techniques as laid down in BATc’ (‘BAT-AELs’)
• Art 15(4): derogation: authority can set limits less strict than BAT-AELs, where assessment shows BAT-AELs would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to environmental benefits due to:• (a) geographical location / local environment of the installation
• (b) technical characteristics of the installation
• Art 15(4 cont.): Must still ensure no significant pollution; comply with Art 18 EQS; include reasons for derogation and results of assessment in annex to permit
• Art 18: Permits must ensure compliance with ‘environmental quality standards’
13
Access to justice - obligations and obstacles
14
Aarhus rights – Articles 24-26• Art 24: Access to information & public participation
• (1) MS must ensure public participation for granting / updating permits for (a) new installations; (b)
substantial changes; (c) Article 15(4) derogations; (d) significant pollution important to note what
this does not cover (BATc updates especially)
• (2) Detailed list of info to be provided to public following decision granting / updating permit
• Annex IV procedure applies
• Art 25: Access to justice for decisions, acts or omissions that are
subject to Art 24 – similar to Aarhus but some major flaws
• Art 26: Transboundary effects – if significant negative effects on
environment of another MS, must notify that MS
15
Access to justice - Article 25
16
Article 25 - access to justice obstacles• Standing: non-national NGOs struggle to secure standing
• Scope: ‘decisions, acts or omissions subject to Article 24’
• Omissions regarding monitoring, enforcement, penalties - not covered by Article 24, but often are key decisions of authorities
• ‘Fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive’
• Technical expertise - highly technical proceedings; hard for NGOs to secure; can be very expensive
• Judges (and even lawyers) struggle with complex technical issues; highly deferential
• Timing: short windows for challenge (e.g. 2 weeks in BG) - hard to review complex permits in available time
• Weaknesses in public participation and access to information undermine ability to secure access to justice (e.g. ACCC/C/2014/121)
• Very few relevant CJEU judgments and national court precedents
17
Building an IED case
18
IED - building a case• Access to info: Get a copy of permit or other decision
• Public participation: Best to participate in permitting procedure - may reduce need for challenge, increases understanding, may help persuade national courts of interest / expertise
• Legal team: lawyers required who understand technicalities of IED
• Technical team:
• Experts in relevant industrial installation and pollution abatement required
• Experts in environmental / human health impacts
• Experts in dispersion modelling
• Campaign team: cases normally aiming to influence decisions to build / operate major industrial installations - effective communications campaign required to maximise impacts of legal work
19
Thank you and sorry
Part II- Case study: Litigation
concerning the Maritsa East 2 coal-
fired power plant in Bulgaria.
Regina Stoilova, Attorney-at-Law, Bulgaria
Dominique Doyle, Lawyer, ClientEarth Energy Programme
Webinar
25 June 2020
Maritsa East 2 EAD (ME2)
• The biggest thermal power plant in the
Balkans (1620 MW)
• Began construction in 1962-1964
• Uses local lignite coal with high Sulphur
content
• Owned by the State of Bulgaria
(Bulgarian Energy Holdings BEH)
• Coal from Maritsa East Mines: the mine
expansion will lead to the expropriation
of three more villages in the next years
BEH is 10th most polluting company in EU (from ME2 alone)
Legal framework
The Industrial Emissions Directive 2010/75/EU (IED)
• Article 21 (3): By 17 August 2021, all permits of large combustion plants must be updated to comply with the best
available techniques (BAT) conclusions for large combustion plants (LCP BAT Conclusions) (strict emissions limits)
• Derogation:
• Article 15 (4) “…the competent authority may, in specific cases, set less strict emission limit values…only where
an assessment shows that the achievement of emission levels associated with the best available techniques as
described in BAT conclusions would lead to disproportionately higher costs compared to the environmental
benefits due to:
(a) the geographical location or the local environmental conditions of the installation concerned; or
(b) the technical characteristics of the installation concerned.”
The derogation granted to ME2
Permit update of 21 December 2018 allowed ME2 to derogate for an indefinite period
Pollutant LCP BAT Conclusions (2017)
ME2 derogation
Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) 10 - 130 mg/Nm3
(320 mg/Nm3 for plants ≥ 300 MW designed to fire indigenous lignite
fuels)
570 mg/Nm3
(97/97,5 % desulphurization rate)
Mercury (Hg) 1-7 μg/Nm3 30 μg/Nm3
26
Derogation for SO2
27
Secondary pollution resulting from SO2
derogation (PM2.5)
28
Derogation for Mercury (Hg)
How we challenged the derogation?
Complainants
• Local ENGO: Za Zemiata and Greenpeace Bulgaria
• Greek individual and a Greek NGO: The Green
Tank
Court
• Administrative Court in Stara Zagora (final hearing
on 28 July 2020)
• Option for cassation appeal
29
How we challenged the derogation
30
Legal grounds:
1. Failures in the public consultation
2. Incorrect application of Article 15 (4) IED
3. Violation of Article 18 IED
1. Failures in the public consultation
1. The public was not informed “early in the procedure for the
taking of a decision” (Paras 1 and 4 of Annex IV of the IED)
2. No access to the documents relevant for the decision making:
the Cost Benefit Assessment (Paras 1 and 2 of Annex IV
IED and Article 6 (6) of the Aarhus Convention)
3. The public in neighboring states (Greece) were not
consulted (Article 3 (17))
31
1. Failures in the public consultation
1. Transboundary impact in
Greece: The public in Greece
were not consulted
2. IED: ‘public concerned’ (Article
24, Annex IV)
3. Espoo Convention and Aarhus
Convention obligations
32
33
2. Incorrect application of Article 15 (4): The cost-
benefit analysis
Are the abatement costs disproportionately higher than the environmental benefits?